Reid v. San Pedro, L. A. & S. L. R. Co.

132 P. 253, 42 Utah 431, 1913 Utah LEXIS 18
CourtUtah Supreme Court
DecidedApril 24, 1913
DocketNo. 2422
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 132 P. 253 (Reid v. San Pedro, L. A. & S. L. R. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Reid v. San Pedro, L. A. & S. L. R. Co., 132 P. 253, 42 Utah 431, 1913 Utah LEXIS 18 (Utah 1913).

Opinion

STRAUP, J.

This is an action to recover damages for tbe killing of two borses and a cow by tbe defendant in tbe operation of its railroad. Tbe case was tried to tbe court and a jury, and resulted in a judgment in favor of tbe plaintiff. Tbe defendant appeals.

Tbe action is based on a failure to fence at tbe place where tbe stock entered tbe defendant’s right of way. Our statute (Comp-. Laws 1907, sec. 456x) requires every railroad company operating a railroad by steam power to erect and maintain “a fence on each side of its railroad where tbe same passes through lands owned and improved by private owners, and connect tbe same, at all public road crossings, with cattle guards.”

Tbe respective contentions are these: Tbe plaintiff, that tbe defendant was required to fence at' tbe place where tbe stock entered tbe right of way but bad not- done so; tbe defendant, that tbe place was depot grounds, and hence it was not required to fence. Tbe court let tbe case to tbe jury, charging them: No. 6: “You are also instructed that it is conceded that Garfield station is a station on defendant’s railroad where such railroad receives and discharges freight and passengers, and where said road maintains a station for tbe use of tbe public and said railroad, and tbe grounds thereabout. If you believe from tbe evidence that no fence was maintained on tbe south side of tbe freigbtbouse of tbe defendant company, and that no such fence could be erected or maintained without obstructing tbe access by tbe public, and that such was reasonably necessary, convenient, and actually used for tbe purposes of station grounds, then tbe said defendant was not bound to construct or maintain a fence at this point to tbe detriment of tbe public, and if tbe jury believe from tbe evidence that said animals came upon said railroad station grounds in consequence of tbe failure of tbe defendant to erect and construct such fence, and that in consequence thereof said animals were killed, then tbe defendant is not liable.” No. [433]*4337: “If, however, you find that the place where the animals entered upon such station grounds was not within the limits of the grounds which were reasonably necessary for such station uses in defendant’s dealings with the public and for the transaction of the company’s business as herein stated, then the law as to fencing set forth in the next preceding instruction would apply, and the defendant would be required to fence at said point where said animals entered upon its station grounds.” The defendant, contending that there was no dispute as to the facts upon which the court in instruction No. 6 directed the jury to find for the defendant, and that the facts assumed in instruction No. 1 were on the record expressly admitted, requested the court to direct a verdict in its favor. This the court refused.

The facts which determine the rights of the parties are substantially without dispute. The injury occurred at Garfield station, which is about one-half mile north of the town of Garfield in Salt Lake County. There the defendant’s railroad track runs east and west. When the road was constructed the right of way at the place in question was fenced on both sides. About four years prior to the injury Garfield station was established by the defendant. A passenger depot, a freight depot, a coal bin, and a warehouse and water tank were erected' at this place on the defendant’s right of way to handle the passenger and freight business of Garfield, which, as is conceded by the plaintiff, “was considerable.” It is somewhat difficult to intelligently describe the depot grounds and premises without reference to the following drawing, which is a miniature of an exhibit in evidence:

[434]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.'s Protest of Rates
107 P.2d 123 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1940)
J. Nebeker & Son v. Los Angeles & S. L. R.
100 P.2d 230 (Utah Supreme Court, 1940)
Ferrell v. Oregon Short Line R. R. Co.
256 P. 104 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1927)
Smith v. Utah-Idaho Cent. R.
209 P. 235 (Utah Supreme Court, 1922)
Edmunds v. Salt Lake & L. A. Ry. Co.
196 P. 1019 (Utah Supreme Court, 1921)
Roberts v. Salt Lake & O. Ry. Co.
176 P. 856 (Utah Supreme Court, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
132 P. 253, 42 Utah 431, 1913 Utah LEXIS 18, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reid-v-san-pedro-l-a-s-l-r-co-utah-1913.